(Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date--continued, Part 8F)

Instinct vs. Intelligence in Diet:
Where is the Line?

This section will briefly address the interactions between instinct and intelligence; and then a long list of claims (about instinct) made by raw-vegan/fruitarian extremists will be discussed.

Introduction: The difficulty of distinguishing between instinct and intelligence
One claim often made by those advocating comparative proofs of vegetarianism is that eating plant foods is instinctive, while eating animal foods is non-instinctive or unnatural. Accordingly, the question of whether particular actions are due to instinct or intelligence is controversial and a source of major disagreement. The problem lies in "confounding"--that is, how to separate instinct from intelligence in the arguably "unnatural" modern world we live in. There appear to be no hard answers to the questions here, although many raw/veg*n advocates claim otherwise.

Individual intelligence can override instinctive restraints. A good introduction to the topic is provided by Itzkhoff [1985, p. 171]:

All our difficulties, as well as all our possibilities have come about because the sapient brain overrode the last restraints, indeed the directiveness, that instinct gives to animals. In the animal world, intelligence is guided by instinct to achieve clear-cut survival needs...

Man, the generalized intelligent ape, has a brain that establishes the rules of the game, almost irrespective of the individual's bodily or even grossly survivalistic needs... What remains to man after these basic conservational restraints of instinct are extinguished is a super-intelligence that filters all major categories of human behavior through the cortex. He is a thinking animal with a complex brain, a supremely energized mammalian brain that must now control, direct, guide his behavior. The old passions, energies, and drives no longer have built-in censors.

A number of raw/veg*n advocates openly criticize intelligence because it allows you to override your instinct, which the advocates claim (with virtually no credible proof or logic to support them) is that of a veg*n animal. The argument is that intelligence allows you to eat the "wrong" foods (where "wrong" is usually equivalent to whatever the dietary advocate dislikes), and these "wrong" food choices often get institutionalized into culture. Some of the more extreme raw dietary advocates (fruitarians, mostly) bitterly and hatefully denounce cultural eating patterns, and culture in general, because of this.

Eating Animal Foods, Part 1:
Instinct or intelligence?
The major question to address here is whether eating meat or animal foods is instinctive or not. A number of raw/veg*n advocates allege that everyone is repulsed by the act of killing another animal and eating its flesh. It should be noted that no real proof is ever offered to back up such claims; what proof--other than the advocate's personal feelings--is there on this subject?

Let's consider the claims that people are "naturally repulsed" by the act of killing and eating other animals. Such claims are clearly contradicted by the following:

No veg*n (hunter-) gatherer societies. Revulsion against the killing of animals is apparently (for the most part) absent in hunter-gatherer societies, none of whom are veg*n, and all of whom rely on animal foods for part of their diet. Note also that humans have been hunter-gatherers for 99% of the time since the human genus Homo appeared. We are all the descendants of (non-veg*n) hunter-gatherers.

Sport (and survival) hunting. Claims of universal revulsion are contradicted by the considerable popularity of sport hunting in many countries and societies. The claims are also contradicted by the millions who hunt for food (including fishing) to ensure their survival.

The meat-animal death connection is clear to many consumers. In many countries, animals are sold alive (and killed at home), or they are killed (in the full view of the consumer) at meat markets. The animal death/meat connection is crystal clear to millions (and probably billions) of meat-eaters.

Remark regarding the two preceding points: Although many of these people could presumably be veg*ns, they choose to eat animal foods. So much for the claim of universal revulsion at killing/eating animals.

For an interesting account of a previously inexperienced modern individual's experiments with killing a chicken and immediately thereafter eating the fresh meat--raw--see Zephyr [1997].

So, next time a veg*n dietary advocate claims that our instincts prevent humans from killing and eating animals, ask them for credible proof of their claim(s). The advocate may simply be projecting his/her personal moral and emotional preferences onto others.

However irritating--or enjoyable--the preceding analysis may be to you, it still does not directly answer the question of whether eating meat is instinctive or not, of course. Obviously, if eating meat (or veggies) is absolutely necessary for survival (survival is certainly an instinct), then it is, by definition, instinctive. However, in today's modern society, with a huge variety of foods available, how often is it absolutely necessary to eat any one food or food type (as substitutes are usually available)?

Eating Animal Foods, Part 2:
An evolutionary view
Another approach to answering the question is to consider our evolutionary history, and to note that, since the very inception of the human (Homo) genus, ~2.5 million years ago, the human diet has included meat, and our metabolic and morphological makeup appear to reflect varying degrees of adaptation to animal foods in the diet. Thus one can argue that eating animal foods is instinctive, because it is natural behavior--behavior that we have followed long enough so that evolutionary adaptation has taken place.

The association of increasing brain size with animal food consumption. For many readers, the preceding paragraph is a convincing argument. However, other readers will quickly ask: What about the confounding effects of intelligence? Here the expensive tissue hypothesis of Aiello and Wheeler [1995], and related research, is relevant. Recall that the major point of the expensive tissue hypothesis is that the human brain increased in size (and our intelligence increased) via brain evolution fueled by a switch to a diet that included very significantly increased amounts of meat, and which allowed our gut (digestive system) to shrink thereby freeing metabolic energy (to support the increase in brain size). This hypothesis, and the related research discussed in section 4 herein, suggest that the consumption of meat and the evolution of intelligence are closely interrelated.

To summarize, the evidence of evolution is as follows.

Eating some animal products (e.g., the lean meat of wild animals) is natural because humans have adapted to the behavior by evolution.

Given the above information, the obvious answer to the question, "Is meat-eating instinctive or driven by intelligence?" is that both apply. That is, one can argue that eating (wild) animal products is both instinctive and intelligent, for humans, from the evolutionary point of view.

Individual intelligence makes the final decision. On the other hand, at the individual level, intelligence may motivate some people to be raw/veg*ns, and to avoid animal products. That is an example of the power of human intelligence, acting at the individual or personal level.

Eating Animal Foods, Part 3:
Morality and naturalism
It is appropriate to remind readers of some important points here.

Survival is amoral. Evolution is driven largely by survival--an amoral concept. The moral arguments for vegetarianism are irrelevant in an evolutionary context.

Individual intelligence implies individual choice. The overriding power of human intelligence allows us to choose to be raw/veg*n, or any other diet that appeals to us. You are not required to eat meat or animal foods.

Instinct not an argument for SAD/SWD diet. Even though one can argue that eating animal foods was instinctive and intelligent in the context of evolution, readers are reminded that modern domesticated/feedlot meat is dissimilar in composition to wild animal meats, and diets high in feedlot meats are known to be relatively unhealthy. That is, the instinct and intelligence arguments do not support a diet of domesticated meats, or the SAD/SWD diet.

Moral dietary decisions an exercise in individual intelligence. If your decision to be a veg*n is based on moral grounds, then the entire instinct vs. intelligence argument is of little or no relevance to you. Your morality, as an exercise of your intelligence, can override other considerations, if you so choose.

Veg*n "instinct" part of false naturalism claims. The primary relevance, in this context, of the claim that veg*n diets are instinctive is that it is part of the false naturalism claims made by many raw/veg*n dietary advocates. The research available on this site provides evidence that raw/veg*n diets are not the natural diet of humanity but are, at best (in terms of concerns having to do with naturalism), a restriction of such diets.